Kerala High Court
Aravidakshan.K vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 22 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:78568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
ARAVIDAKSHAN.K.,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. RAMAN VAIDYAR, KOTTUPADIYAN HOUSE, KALIKAVU
P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676525
BY ADVS.
SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
R.D.O. OFFICE,PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2 AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, KALIKAVU KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676525
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KALIKAVU VILLAGE OFFICE, KALIKAVU P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676525
OTHER PRESENT:
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:78568
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:78568
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.19101 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i. a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
order or direction to call for the records leading to
Ext.P3 order and quash the same.
ii. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction to first respondent to allow the
application submitted by the petitioner under Form 5
of the Act, 2008.
OR
A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction to the first respondent to reconsider
Ext.P3 order passed in the application submitted by
the petitioner under Form 5 of the Act, 2008 on the
basis of the report of KSREC and satellite picture of the
property and afford an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner within a reasonable time.
iii. such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to
grant in the nature of this case.
iv. a direction to dispense with filing of the translation
of vernacular document produced with this writ
petition." (SIC)
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
2025:KER:78568
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed
by the 1st respondent, by which an application submitted by the
petitioner under Form 5 in accordance to the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008,
(for short, the Act and the Rules) is rejected.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused the impugned order. I am of the
considered opinion that the authorised officer has failed to
comply the statutory requirements. The impugned order is
passed by the authorised officer solely based on the report of
the Agricultural Officer. There is no indication in the order that
the authorised officer has directly inspected the property or
called for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f) of
the Rules. There is no independent finding regarding the nature
and character of the land as on the relevant date by the
authorised officer. Moreover, the authorised officer has not
considered whether the exclusion of the property would
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
2025:KER:78568
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields.
5. This Court This Court in Muraleedharan Nair R v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1)
KLT 433], observed that the competent authority is obliged to
assess the nature, lie and character of the land and its
suitability for paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the
decisive criteria to determine whether the property merits
exclusion from the data bank. The impugned order is not in
accordance with the principle laid down by this Court in the
above judgments. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion
that the impugned order is to be set aside.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
manner:
a) Ext.P3 order is set aside.
b) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is
directed to reconsider Form 5 application submitted
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
2025:KER:78568
by the petitioner in accordance with law. The
authorised officer shall either conduct a personal
inspection of the property or, alternatively, call for
the satellite pictures, in accordance with Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules, at the cost of the petitioner.
c) If satellite pictures are called for, the
application shall be disposed of within three months
from the date of receipt of such pictures. On the
other hand, if the authorised officer opts to
personally inspect the property, the application
shall be considered and disposed of within two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this judgment by the petitioner.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 22/10/25
Judgment dictated 22/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 22/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 23/10/25
WP(C) NO. 19101 OF 2024
2025:KER:78568
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19101/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
23.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE,
KALIKAVU
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO. 4687/2014 DATED
28.08.2014 OF S.R.O., VANDOOR
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2022 PASSED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2006 PASSED
BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.02.203 IN
W.P.(C) NO.20933/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
COURT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.12.2023 IN
W.P.(C) NO.4388/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT
